I think Chatman has as good a talent as either McGary or GR3. I think Wilson can be developed into that kind of player. I think we will get a recruit or two at that position in 2015. I think Horford and Morgan will be by far the worst of that group when we look back.
Well, based on your definition of talent, which includes the word intangible, which implies that you can’t develop/coach that “talent”, I would say you are definitely reaching to be honest about it, especially in relation to Wilson.
JBlair - this is precisely my issue, you (along with others) are essentially saying "yes, we're not very good at rebounding/defense, but just deal with it because perimeter shooting is more important". I understand that may not represent your preferred philosophy, but nevertheless, that just isn't a sound approach to basketball. In all seriousness, how dumb does it sound to basically say we don't care about defense and/or rebounding because it may mitigate our ability to hoist 3s?I agree that rebounding was not the only contributing factor, but I think you can concede it was the primary factor. Let’s be reasonable here though, is shooting 52% from the field and 44% from 3 meeting the standards of a good shooting night - of course it is. Sure, we could’ve shot 60%, but that’s not a reasonable expectation in any setting let alone a championship game. Could we have turned the ball over less - sure, but is 12 TOs outside the realm of acceptability? Is 75% from the FT line reasonable - yes. Could we have nailed all our FTs - sure we could’ve but that’s not a reasonable expectation.
However, getting outshot 35 - 20, and outrebounded 20 - 10 in one half is so far below expectations its virtually unbelievable. I mean, there has to be a serious breakdown in order for that to occur. We could’ve done any and everything better, but realistically we met or exceeded expectations in all facets of the game other than rebounding. Not only did we fail to meet reasonable expectations, we looked totally incompetent on the glass during the 2nd half.
It’s not a “sound” approach according to you but if Beilein wants to play that way…it got us to the national title game and we were within 6 points of winning. If he thinks that putting a little more emphasis on 3’s and turnovers is a good way to go, then I’ll live with that. He’s smarter than you.
You earlier said that rebounding was the ONLY reason. Now you’re back tracking? Hmmm…anyway. Yeah - rebounding/interior defense was not good. But we were still within 6 points of winning when we were shooting well. We didn’t win the turnover battle and that’s what a Beilein team must do. We gave up 9 steals - horrible. We let them shoot 50% from 3 - horrible.
The TRUTH is this…we can have all the opinions we want to about what we think the coaching staff should and shouldn’t do, but we have no influence on what they will do. Going on here and endlessly debating about what we don’t like about the program really doesn’t accomplish much. I for one am just glad we have a real coaching staff with a winning philosophy that seem to do things the right way and get results. Do I love everything about that philosophy? No. But I also realize that the philosophy is not going to change based on my input. I do not want to go back to the days of Ellerbe and Amaker when we were seemingly always outcoached and couldn’t sniff a tournament bid. Nor do I want to go back to the days of Fisher and Frieder when we had lots of talent and won games, but had a program that was shady and unethical. It seems to me that right now we’ve got it pretty good with Beilein. He is recruiting pretty well, we have a competitive program, and we seem to be above board in regards to NCAA rules.
Beilein has been coaching for a long time and has figured out the style of play and types of players that help him to succeed. Great defense and great rebounding are no more a paramount emphasis of his philosophy than shooting and limiting turnovers are a part of Izzo’s. I am sure he would love for his teams to be great at everything, but it rarely happens in college basketball. So there are trade offs when you build your team. You can strive to have everything, but most of the time teams do not and thus weaknesses are born.
Now as fans we can either accept our team and hope for the best or complain about what is missing in order to make the next step. I choose to accept the team and understand that perfection is not simple. If you want to call me a cheerleader, that is fine, but I absolutely do not want to go back to what this program used to be, which is either a doormat or a cheater.
JBlair - this is precisely my issue, you (along with others) are essentially saying "yes, we're not very good at rebounding/defense, but just deal with it because perimeter shooting is more important". I understand that may not represent your preferred philosophy, but nevertheless, that just isn't a sound approach to basketball. In all seriousness, how dumb does it sound to basically say we don't care about defense and/or rebounding because it may mitigate our ability to hoist 3s?I agree that rebounding was not the only contributing factor, but I think you can concede it was the primary factor. Let’s be reasonable here though, is shooting 52% from the field and 44% from 3 meeting the standards of a good shooting night - of course it is. Sure, we could’ve shot 60%, but that’s not a reasonable expectation in any setting let alone a championship game. Could we have turned the ball over less - sure, but is 12 TOs outside the realm of acceptability? Is 75% from the FT line reasonable - yes. Could we have nailed all our FTs - sure we could’ve but that’s not a reasonable expectation.
However, getting outshot 35 - 20, and outrebounded 20 - 10 in one half is so far below expectations its virtually unbelievable. I mean, there has to be a serious breakdown in order for that to occur. We could’ve done any and everything better, but realistically we met or exceeded expectations in all facets of the game other than rebounding. Not only did we fail to meet reasonable expectations, we looked totally incompetent on the glass during the 2nd half.
It’s not a “sound” approach according to you but if Beilein wants to play that way…it got us to the national title game and we were within 6 points of winning. If he thinks that putting a little more emphasis on 3’s and turnovers is a good way to go, then I’ll live with that. He’s smarter than you.
You earlier said that rebounding was the ONLY reason. Now you’re back tracking? Hmmm…anyway. Yeah - rebounding/interior defense was not good. But we were still within 6 points of winning when we were shooting well. We didn’t win the turnover battle and that’s what a Beilein team must do. We gave up 9 steals - horrible. We let them shoot 50% from 3 - horrible.
Backtracking…you’ve got to be kidding me. Just give it a break already, we all know we lost the damn game because we couldn’t rebound. Bottom line is this, the numbers support my argument. It’s almost funny to me that you say I’m backtracking, and yet fail to address the huge discrepancy in rebounds and shot attempts. That is what you label selective analysis.
I don’t want to hear the BUT word, that’s just an excuse in reality. The only reason we “must” win the TO battle is because we can’t rebound the damn ball.
I’ll keep this short and simple, if you told anybody prior to the game that Michigan shot 52% FG, 44% from 3, made 18 FTs and only had 12 TOs, EVERYBODY would say that Michigan won without looking at the box score. The fact that we didn’t is pathetic, and it’s due to one factor, we’re simply not tough enough as a team. You can choose to block out reality if you’d like, but you know what that reality is deep down. Has the program improved - of course it has. Are we a good team - yes. Are we tough - NO. End of story.
JBlair - this is precisely my issue, you (along with others) are essentially saying "yes, we're not very good at rebounding/defense, but just deal with it because perimeter shooting is more important". I understand that may not represent your preferred philosophy, but nevertheless, that just isn't a sound approach to basketball. In all seriousness, how dumb does it sound to basically say we don't care about defense and/or rebounding because it may mitigate our ability to hoist 3s?I agree that rebounding was not the only contributing factor, but I think you can concede it was the primary factor. Let’s be reasonable here though, is shooting 52% from the field and 44% from 3 meeting the standards of a good shooting night - of course it is. Sure, we could’ve shot 60%, but that’s not a reasonable expectation in any setting let alone a championship game. Could we have turned the ball over less - sure, but is 12 TOs outside the realm of acceptability? Is 75% from the FT line reasonable - yes. Could we have nailed all our FTs - sure we could’ve but that’s not a reasonable expectation.
However, getting outshot 35 - 20, and outrebounded 20 - 10 in one half is so far below expectations its virtually unbelievable. I mean, there has to be a serious breakdown in order for that to occur. We could’ve done any and everything better, but realistically we met or exceeded expectations in all facets of the game other than rebounding. Not only did we fail to meet reasonable expectations, we looked totally incompetent on the glass during the 2nd half.
It’s not a “sound” approach according to you but if Beilein wants to play that way…it got us to the national title game and we were within 6 points of winning. If he thinks that putting a little more emphasis on 3’s and turnovers is a good way to go, then I’ll live with that. He’s smarter than you.
You earlier said that rebounding was the ONLY reason. Now you’re back tracking? Hmmm…anyway. Yeah - rebounding/interior defense was not good. But we were still within 6 points of winning when we were shooting well. We didn’t win the turnover battle and that’s what a Beilein team must do. We gave up 9 steals - horrible. We let them shoot 50% from 3 - horrible.
Backtracking…you’ve got to be kidding me. Just give it a break already, we all know we lost the damn game because we couldn’t rebound. Bottom line is this, the numbers support my argument. It’s almost funny to me that you say I’m backtracking, and yet fail to address the huge discrepancy in rebounds and shot attempts. That is what you label selective analysis.
I don’t want to hear the BUT word, that’s just an excuse in reality. The only reason we “must” win the TO battle is because we can’t rebound the damn ball.
I’ll keep this short and simple, if you told anybody prior to the game that Michigan shot 52% FG, 44% from 3, made 18 FTs and only had 12 TOs, EVERYBODY would say that Michigan won without looking at the box score. The fact that we didn’t is pathetic, and it’s due to one factor, we’re simply not tough enough as a team. You can choose to block out reality if you’d like, but you know what that reality is deep down. Has the program improved - of course it has. Are we a good team - yes. Are we tough - NO. End of story.
Oh sorry, I thought you said the ONLY reason we lost was interior defense and rebounding. I must have misread that…
I’ll keep this shorter and simpler, If you told people prior to the game that Louisville shot 50% from 3 and Michigan lost the turnover battle…I think most would say Michigan would lose.
We’re not a tough team. I agree. But that “soft” team got us within 6 points of winning the national title and we didn’t win the turnover or 3 point contests. Fact.
Alright, let’s get right down to it. Extensive analysis on the disputed factors and their alleged contributions to the loss at issue. Keep in mind this data is obejctive and can not be disputed.
Regarding the 3 point shooting and TOs:
“Michigan shot the tar out of the ball, didn’t turn it over against Louisville’s pressure and got to the free throw as effectively as it has all season. The Wolverine offense went out with its guns blazing, scoring 1.17 points per possession against a Louisville defense that hadn’t surrendered more than 1.11 points per trip in its first 39 games.”
Regarding the defense/rebounding (or total lack of in this case):
“But this loss was about Michigan’s defens”
“Michigan’s season was always going to end like this. The ending just came two weeks later than anyone expected”
“But down the stretch those ugly habits returned in a nasty way. Michigan’s defense ran out of steam. It wasn’t Louisville’s highly touted turnover forcing defense that did the Wolverines in, it was Michigan’s inability to stop the Cardinals. Louisville would outscore Michigan 59-41 over the game’s final 23 minutes and change and walk out of the Georgia Dome as champions.
Michigan’s special season ended on a sour note not because of a new shortcoming but because it reverted to its old self.”
“Michigan would surrender 59 points in the final 41 possessions of the game; 1.44 points per trip. The Wolverines rebounded 83% of Louisville’s missed shots in the first 16:37 of the game and just 41% of Louisville’s missed shots in the final 23:23.”
It appears that someone was watching the same game that I witnessed in person, one Dylan Burkhardt. S-O-F-T…I mean 41%, I can’t fathom how that even happens in a national championship game.
Anyone that fails to acknowledge we have a soft team is delusional at this point.
Our inability to simply box out is baffling to be honest. It’s to the point where Dakich stated “Michigan lacks an inherent grit” - in other words we’re soft. And he is correct.
We are a below average defensive/rebounding team with Mitch on the court, without Mitch we are downright bad, and I think mostly everybody knows that at this point.
I must say I had a huge problem with the coaching today as it relates to the offensive end. Mitch had 3 isos on the post today, 2 of those possessions resulted in a basket, with the other resulting in a foul by the opposition. Mitch has clearly improved his post game, but yet the coaches fail to utilize on their best weapons. But yet we give Morgan the ball on screen and roll? Mitch should be getting 7-10 iso post touches per game, no excuse for not finding him down there. Give McGary the damn ball on the block…please
I’m telling you, if we don’t play with more intensity tomorrow and vs Duke, it’s going to be ugly.
While i agree, it’s really early and we look nothing like what we will in B1G play. We have so much talent and portable parts that we will be fine. I think we will be fine against VCU. Duke is going to eat our lunch if we don’t close out on shooters better though.
To a certain extent I understand the lack of toughness, because as you would say, that is an “intangible” factor. A factor that Coach B doesn’t really prioritize.
But the lack of implementing offensive sets for Mitch on the block is truly perplexing to say the least. That guy is an absolute monster in a multitude of ways, he doesn’t have to score to be effective because he is not only a great passer, but a willing passer as well. He can create shots for other people and command a double team.
Anyone that fails to acknowledge we have a soft team is delusional at this point.Our inability to simply box out is baffling to be honest. It’s to the point where Dakich stated “Michigan lacks an inherent grit” - in other words we’re soft. And he is correct.
We are a below average defensive/rebounding team with Mitch on the court, without Mitch we are downright bad, and I think mostly everybody knows that at this point.
I must say I had a huge problem with the coaching today as it relates to the offensive end. Mitch had 3 isos on the post today, 2 of those possessions resulted in a basket, with the other resulting in a foul by the opposition. Mitch has clearly improved his post game, but yet the coaches fail to utilize on their best weapons. But yet we give Morgan the ball on screen and roll? Mitch should be getting 7-10 iso post touches per game, no excuse for not finding him down there. Give McGary the damn ball on the block…please
I’m telling you, if we don’t play with more intensity tomorrow and vs Duke, it’s going to be ugly.
Can you please name me one person who has failed to acknowledge that we have a soft team?
Fair enough, perhaps I was mistaken, SOME people have acknowledged we are soft. You, in particular, have acknowledged, so for that you are owed credit.
But the lack of implementing offensive sets for Mitch on the block is truly perplexing to say the least.
This frustrated me more than anything else in this game. I accept that I don’t know Mitch’s status and he may still be getting “rounded back into form” cardio wise etc. But I don’t think that’s an excuse for not drawing up plays for him when he is expected to be participating in the game. Granted, drawing up plays for big men on the low block is not Beilein’s MO, but he is too much of a weapon to be left out of the offense. In the words of Dan Dakich “He’s an All-American” and he is, you have to find a way to use his big body down low.
But the lack of implementing offensive sets for Mitch on the block is truly perplexing to say the least.This frustrated me more than anything else in this game. I accept that I don’t know Mitch’s status and he may still be getting “rounded back into form” cardio wise etc. But I don’t think that’s an excuse for not drawing up plays for him when he is expected to be participating in the game. Granted, drawing up plays for big men on the low block is not Beilein’s MO, but he is too much of a weapon to be left out of the offense. In the words of Dan Dakich “He’s an All-American” and he is, you have to find a way to use his big body down low.
I agree - feed the post. But will say when Dakich made that comment…the issue wasn’t him not being in position or not running a play for him, it was the guards didn’t look at him.
If anything Beilein should be telling his guards to throw the ball in the post.
(maybe he told them otherwise)
The opportunities are there already. Feed the big boy. He HUNGRY!
LOL this dude is funnyUL had higher talent level and that’s why they won. Had nothing to do with the system of play. San Antonio and Miami are two teams in the NBA that run systems similar to ours and have no problems.
I think Michigan was more talented and lost.
LOL this dude is funnyUL had higher talent level and that’s why they won. Had nothing to do with the system of play. San Antonio and Miami are two teams in the NBA that run systems similar to ours and have no problems.
I think Michigan was more talented and lost.
That’s not rooted in any fact.
True, but neither is the premise that UL had more talent and lost. If we were to go objectively down the lineups it would probably look something like this.
Burke>Siva
Smith>Stauskas (at the time, not potential or now)
THJ>Blackshear
Behanan>GR3
McGary>Dieng
Bench:
Hancock>Levert (at the time, not potential or now)
Spike>Henderson
Again, not factual, but I think overall Michigan had a bit more talent than UL, just not enough heart.
Again, not factual, but I think overall Michigan had a bit more talent than UL, just not enough heart.
I don’t think we’re a tough team but that’s different IMO than enough heart.
You don’t get to the national title game if you’re lacking in heart.
We’re not a “tough” as in physical (rebounding, defense, offense) team.
Those kids worked way too hard to achieve what few achieve for you to discredit them for not having enough heart.
I guess it’s all about our own subjective definitions. In my opinion, “heart” is a prerequisite for being tough. Just my take on it though
I guess it's all about our own subjective definitions. In my opinion, "heart" is a prerequisite for being tough. Just my take on it though
Yeah, so based on what you just said you can have heart yet not be “tough”
I agree we aren’t tough but that team had heart. I think it’s ridiculous to say otherwise.